Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 851

control, N = 431

treatment, N = 421

p-value2

age

85

50.51 ± 13.04 (25 - 74)

50.29 ± 13.29 (25 - 74)

50.74 ± 12.94 (28 - 73)

0.873

gender

85

0.519

f

60 (71%)

29 (67%)

31 (74%)

m

25 (29%)

14 (33%)

11 (26%)

occupation

85

0.894

day_training

2 (2.4%)

2 (4.7%)

0 (0%)

full_time

9 (11%)

5 (12%)

4 (9.5%)

homemaker

6 (7.1%)

3 (7.0%)

3 (7.1%)

other

2 (2.4%)

0 (0%)

2 (4.8%)

part_time

15 (18%)

7 (16%)

8 (19%)

retired

21 (25%)

10 (23%)

11 (26%)

self_employ

4 (4.7%)

2 (4.7%)

2 (4.8%)

student

1 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.4%)

t_and_e

2 (2.4%)

1 (2.3%)

1 (2.4%)

unemploy

23 (27%)

13 (30%)

10 (24%)

marital

85

0.692

cohabitation

1 (1.2%)

0 (0%)

1 (2.4%)

divore

10 (12%)

7 (16%)

3 (7.1%)

in_relationship

1 (1.2%)

1 (2.3%)

0 (0%)

married

21 (25%)

10 (23%)

11 (26%)

none

46 (54%)

22 (51%)

24 (57%)

seperation

3 (3.5%)

2 (4.7%)

1 (2.4%)

widow

3 (3.5%)

1 (2.3%)

2 (4.8%)

edu

85

0.843

bachelor

24 (28%)

9 (21%)

15 (36%)

diploma

18 (21%)

11 (26%)

7 (17%)

hd_ad

3 (3.5%)

2 (4.7%)

1 (2.4%)

postgraduate

7 (8.2%)

4 (9.3%)

3 (7.1%)

primary

5 (5.9%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.1%)

secondary_1_3

10 (12%)

6 (14%)

4 (9.5%)

secondary_4_5

16 (19%)

8 (19%)

8 (19%)

secondary_6_7

2 (2.4%)

1 (2.3%)

1 (2.4%)

fam_income

85

0.908

10001_12000

4 (4.7%)

1 (2.3%)

3 (7.1%)

12001_14000

5 (5.9%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.1%)

14001_16000

5 (5.9%)

2 (4.7%)

3 (7.1%)

16001_18000

2 (2.4%)

1 (2.3%)

1 (2.4%)

18001_20000

4 (4.7%)

3 (7.0%)

1 (2.4%)

20001_above

14 (16%)

7 (16%)

7 (17%)

2001_4000

13 (15%)

9 (21%)

4 (9.5%)

4001_6000

10 (12%)

4 (9.3%)

6 (14%)

6001_8000

9 (11%)

5 (12%)

4 (9.5%)

8001_10000

7 (8.2%)

3 (7.0%)

4 (9.5%)

below_2000

12 (14%)

6 (14%)

6 (14%)

medication

85

75 (88%)

39 (91%)

36 (86%)

0.520

onset_duration

85

15.28 ± 10.96 (0 - 56)

16.65 ± 12.05 (1 - 56)

13.88 ± 9.66 (0 - 35)

0.246

onset_age

85

35.23 ± 14.02 (14 - 64)

33.63 ± 12.83 (14 - 58)

36.86 ± 15.13 (15 - 64)

0.291

1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)

2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic

N

Overall, N = 851

control, N = 431

treatment, N = 421

p-value2

recovery_stage_a

85

3.08 ± 1.20 (1 - 5)

3.09 ± 1.23 (1 - 5)

3.07 ± 1.18 (1 - 5)

0.934

recovery_stage_b

85

18.01 ± 2.65 (9 - 23)

17.86 ± 2.77 (9 - 23)

18.17 ± 2.55 (13 - 23)

0.597

ras_confidence

85

30.19 ± 4.75 (19 - 43)

29.63 ± 4.29 (19 - 40)

30.76 ± 5.17 (20 - 43)

0.274

ras_willingness

85

12.24 ± 1.95 (7 - 15)

12.07 ± 1.87 (9 - 15)

12.40 ± 2.04 (7 - 15)

0.432

ras_goal

85

17.60 ± 2.86 (12 - 24)

17.49 ± 2.81 (12 - 24)

17.71 ± 2.94 (12 - 24)

0.718

ras_reliance

85

13.06 ± 2.80 (8 - 20)

12.98 ± 2.61 (8 - 18)

13.14 ± 3.00 (8 - 20)

0.786

ras_domination

85

9.93 ± 2.34 (3 - 15)

10.42 ± 2.27 (3 - 15)

9.43 ± 2.33 (3 - 14)

0.050

symptom

85

30.42 ± 9.81 (14 - 56)

31.95 ± 9.92 (14 - 55)

28.86 ± 9.57 (15 - 56)

0.147

slof_work

85

22.84 ± 4.88 (10 - 30)

22.53 ± 4.46 (13 - 30)

23.14 ± 5.31 (10 - 30)

0.569

slof_relationship

85

25.82 ± 5.92 (11 - 35)

25.12 ± 5.96 (13 - 35)

26.55 ± 5.87 (11 - 35)

0.268

satisfaction

85

20.53 ± 6.71 (5 - 32)

18.86 ± 6.49 (5 - 29)

22.24 ± 6.57 (5 - 32)

0.019

mhc_emotional

85

11.20 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)

10.67 ± 3.47 (3 - 17)

11.74 ± 4.03 (4 - 18)

0.195

mhc_social

85

15.04 ± 5.26 (6 - 30)

15.14 ± 5.25 (7 - 30)

14.93 ± 5.33 (6 - 26)

0.855

mhc_psychological

85

22.15 ± 5.89 (6 - 36)

21.56 ± 5.43 (10 - 36)

22.76 ± 6.34 (6 - 36)

0.349

resilisnce

85

16.67 ± 4.49 (6 - 27)

16.28 ± 4.16 (6 - 24)

17.07 ± 4.83 (7 - 27)

0.420

social_provision

85

13.71 ± 2.86 (5 - 20)

13.26 ± 2.35 (8 - 20)

14.17 ± 3.26 (5 - 20)

0.143

els_value_living

85

17.13 ± 2.91 (5 - 25)

16.51 ± 2.36 (12 - 22)

17.76 ± 3.30 (5 - 25)

0.047

els_life_fulfill

85

12.66 ± 3.29 (4 - 20)

11.53 ± 3.05 (5 - 17)

13.81 ± 3.16 (4 - 20)

0.001

els

85

29.79 ± 5.61 (9 - 45)

28.05 ± 4.59 (18 - 36)

31.57 ± 6.03 (9 - 45)

0.003

social_connect

85

26.91 ± 9.22 (8 - 48)

27.84 ± 8.23 (8 - 45)

25.95 ± 10.14 (8 - 48)

0.349

shs_agency

85

14.58 ± 4.77 (3 - 24)

13.74 ± 4.32 (3 - 21)

15.43 ± 5.10 (3 - 24)

0.104

shs_pathway

85

16.56 ± 3.90 (4 - 24)

16.02 ± 3.71 (8 - 24)

17.12 ± 4.06 (4 - 23)

0.197

shs

85

31.14 ± 8.21 (7 - 47)

29.77 ± 7.66 (13 - 45)

32.55 ± 8.59 (7 - 47)

0.119

esteem

85

12.69 ± 1.53 (10 - 18)

12.93 ± 1.58 (10 - 18)

12.45 ± 1.45 (10 - 16)

0.150

mlq_search

85

15.01 ± 3.25 (3 - 21)

14.86 ± 3.07 (6 - 21)

15.17 ± 3.46 (3 - 21)

0.667

mlq_presence

85

13.54 ± 4.10 (3 - 21)

13.33 ± 3.68 (5 - 21)

13.76 ± 4.53 (3 - 21)

0.627

mlq

85

28.55 ± 6.53 (6 - 42)

28.19 ± 5.86 (12 - 40)

28.93 ± 7.21 (6 - 42)

0.603

empower

85

19.47 ± 4.05 (6 - 28)

18.95 ± 3.48 (11 - 24)

20.00 ± 4.54 (6 - 28)

0.236

ismi_resistance

85

14.78 ± 2.61 (5 - 20)

14.42 ± 2.17 (11 - 19)

15.14 ± 2.97 (5 - 20)

0.202

ismi_discrimation

85

11.46 ± 3.14 (5 - 19)

12.42 ± 2.85 (5 - 19)

10.48 ± 3.16 (5 - 19)

0.004

sss_affective

85

10.04 ± 3.75 (3 - 18)

10.56 ± 3.54 (3 - 18)

9.50 ± 3.92 (3 - 18)

0.195

sss_behavior

85

9.67 ± 3.98 (3 - 18)

10.40 ± 4.07 (3 - 18)

8.93 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)

0.089

sss_cognitive

85

8.24 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)

8.65 ± 3.96 (3 - 18)

7.81 ± 3.59 (3 - 18)

0.308

sss

85

27.94 ± 10.68 (9 - 54)

29.60 ± 10.50 (9 - 54)

26.24 ± 10.72 (9 - 54)

0.147

1Mean ± SD (Range)

2Two Sample t-test

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Group

Characteristic

Beta

SE1

95% CI1

p-value

recovery_stage_a

(Intercept)

3.09

0.181

2.74, 3.45

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.022

0.257

-0.526, 0.482

0.933

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.223

0.273

-0.312, 0.758

0.417

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.233

0.384

-0.519, 0.985

0.546

Pseudo R square

0.021

recovery_stage_b

(Intercept)

17.9

0.420

17.0, 18.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.306

0.598

-0.865, 1.48

0.609

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.252

0.594

-1.42, 0.913

0.673

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.900

0.834

-0.735, 2.53

0.285

Pseudo R square

0.020

ras_confidence

(Intercept)

29.6

0.758

28.1, 31.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.13

1.078

-0.979, 3.25

0.295

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.349

0.826

-1.27, 1.97

0.674

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.11

1.157

-1.16, 3.38

0.343

Pseudo R square

0.033

ras_willingness

(Intercept)

12.1

0.304

11.5, 12.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.335

0.432

-0.513, 1.18

0.440

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.691

0.306

-1.29, -0.091

0.028

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.774

0.429

-0.067, 1.61

0.077

Pseudo R square

0.035

ras_goal

(Intercept)

17.5

0.464

16.6, 18.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.226

0.660

-1.07, 1.52

0.733

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.945

0.535

-1.99, 0.104

0.083

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.85

0.750

0.381, 3.32

0.017

Pseudo R square

0.040

ras_reliance

(Intercept)

13.0

0.418

12.2, 13.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.166

0.595

-1.00, 1.33

0.781

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.461

0.425

-0.372, 1.29

0.283

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.889

0.595

-0.277, 2.06

0.141

Pseudo R square

0.038

ras_domination

(Intercept)

10.4

0.348

9.74, 11.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.990

0.495

-1.96, -0.020

0.048

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.544

0.460

-1.45, 0.359

0.243

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.68

0.646

0.413, 2.94

0.012

Pseudo R square

0.041

symptom

(Intercept)

32.0

1.491

29.0, 34.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.10

2.122

-7.25, 1.06

0.148

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.248

1.203

-2.11, 2.61

0.838

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.81

1.684

-5.11, 1.49

0.288

Pseudo R square

0.038

slof_work

(Intercept)

22.5

0.749

21.1, 24.0

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.608

1.065

-1.48, 2.70

0.570

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.794

0.636

-2.04, 0.452

0.218

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.179

0.890

-1.57, 1.92

0.842

Pseudo R square

0.009

slof_relationship

(Intercept)

25.1

0.893

23.4, 26.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.43

1.270

-1.06, 3.92

0.263

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-1.05

0.887

-2.79, 0.692

0.243

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.29

1.243

-1.15, 3.72

0.306

Pseudo R square

0.029

satisfaction

(Intercept)

18.9

1.038

16.8, 20.9

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.38

1.477

0.483, 6.27

0.024

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.895

1.236

-1.53, 3.32

0.472

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.198

1.732

-3.59, 3.20

0.909

Pseudo R square

0.059

mhc_emotional

(Intercept)

10.7

0.570

9.56, 11.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.06

0.811

-0.526, 2.65

0.193

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.355

0.548

-0.718, 1.43

0.520

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.518

0.767

-2.02, 0.985

0.503

Pseudo R square

0.015

mhc_social

(Intercept)

15.1

0.841

13.5, 16.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.211

1.197

-2.56, 2.14

0.860

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.10

0.952

-0.762, 2.97

0.252

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.889

1.334

-3.50, 1.73

0.508

Pseudo R square

0.007

mhc_psychological

(Intercept)

21.6

0.958

19.7, 23.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.20

1.364

-1.47, 3.88

0.379

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.764

1.031

-1.26, 2.78

0.462

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.451

1.444

-3.28, 2.38

0.756

Pseudo R square

0.009

resilisnce

(Intercept)

16.3

0.675

15.0, 17.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.792

0.961

-1.09, 2.68

0.411

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.017

0.744

-1.44, 1.48

0.981

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

1.16

1.042

-0.883, 3.20

0.271

Pseudo R square

0.026

social_provision

(Intercept)

13.3

0.443

12.4, 14.1

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.911

0.631

-0.325, 2.15

0.152

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.850

0.542

-1.91, 0.211

0.122

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.997

0.759

-0.491, 2.48

0.194

Pseudo R square

0.054

els_value_living

(Intercept)

16.5

0.457

15.6, 17.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.25

0.650

-0.023, 2.52

0.057

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.100

0.496

-0.872, 1.07

0.842

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.359

0.694

-1.00, 1.72

0.608

Pseudo R square

0.053

els_life_fulfill

(Intercept)

11.5

0.467

10.6, 12.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.27

0.664

0.973, 3.58

0.001

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.968

0.480

0.028, 1.91

0.049

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.646

0.672

-1.96, 0.671

0.341

Pseudo R square

0.112

els

(Intercept)

28.0

0.837

26.4, 29.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

3.52

1.191

1.19, 5.86

0.004

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

1.02

0.826

-0.598, 2.64

0.222

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.221

1.156

-2.49, 2.04

0.849

Pseudo R square

0.096

social_connect

(Intercept)

27.8

1.429

25.0, 30.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.88

2.033

-5.87, 2.10

0.356

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.505

1.233

-1.91, 2.92

0.684

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.87

1.727

-5.25, 1.51

0.284

Pseudo R square

0.021

shs_agency

(Intercept)

13.7

0.730

12.3, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.68

1.039

-0.352, 3.72

0.108

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.280

0.782

-1.25, 1.81

0.722

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.355

1.095

-1.79, 2.50

0.747

Pseudo R square

0.037

shs_pathway

(Intercept)

16.0

0.590

14.9, 17.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.10

0.840

-0.550, 2.74

0.195

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.176

0.618

-1.04, 1.39

0.777

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.250

0.866

-1.95, 1.45

0.774

Pseudo R square

0.017

shs

(Intercept)

29.8

1.243

27.3, 32.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

2.78

1.769

-0.686, 6.25

0.119

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.448

1.286

-2.07, 2.97

0.729

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.124

1.801

-3.41, 3.65

0.945

Pseudo R square

0.030

esteem

(Intercept)

12.9

0.215

12.5, 13.4

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.478

0.307

-1.08, 0.123

0.122

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.036

0.328

-0.607, 0.679

0.914

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.280

0.461

-0.623, 1.18

0.546

Pseudo R square

0.023

mlq_search

(Intercept)

14.9

0.499

13.9, 15.8

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.306

0.710

-1.09, 1.70

0.667

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.329

0.602

-1.51, 0.852

0.587

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.034

0.844

-1.69, 1.62

0.968

Pseudo R square

0.005

mlq_presence

(Intercept)

13.3

0.626

12.1, 14.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.436

0.891

-1.31, 2.18

0.625

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.007

0.730

-1.44, 1.42

0.992

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.022

1.023

-1.98, 2.03

0.983

Pseudo R square

0.003

mlq

(Intercept)

28.2

1.011

26.2, 30.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.743

1.438

-2.08, 3.56

0.607

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.347

1.180

-2.66, 1.97

0.770

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.000

1.654

-3.24, 3.24

1.00

Pseudo R square

0.004

empower

(Intercept)

19.0

0.626

17.7, 20.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

1.05

0.891

-0.699, 2.79

0.243

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.089

0.588

-1.06, 1.24

0.881

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.466

0.823

-2.08, 1.15

0.574

Pseudo R square

0.013

ismi_resistance

(Intercept)

14.4

0.384

13.7, 15.2

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

0.724

0.547

-0.348, 1.80

0.188

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.075

0.524

-0.951, 1.10

0.886

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.008

0.735

-1.43, 1.45

0.991

Pseudo R square

0.021

ismi_discrimation

(Intercept)

12.4

0.472

11.5, 13.3

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.94

0.672

-3.26, -0.626

0.005

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.662

0.506

-1.65, 0.330

0.196

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

0.882

0.709

-0.507, 2.27

0.219

Pseudo R square

0.071

sss_affective

(Intercept)

10.6

0.555

9.47, 11.6

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.06

0.789

-2.60, 0.488

0.183

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.093

0.540

-0.964, 1.15

0.863

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.18

0.756

-2.66, 0.304

0.125

Pseudo R square

0.049

sss_behavior

(Intercept)

10.4

0.583

9.25, 11.5

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-1.47

0.829

-3.09, 0.159

0.080

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

-0.305

0.617

-1.51, 0.905

0.624

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-0.450

0.865

-2.14, 1.25

0.605

Pseudo R square

0.049

sss_cognitive

(Intercept)

8.65

0.571

7.53, 9.77

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-0.842

0.813

-2.44, 0.752

0.303

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.946

0.523

-0.079, 1.97

0.077

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-1.81

0.732

-3.25, -0.377

0.017

Pseudo R square

0.049

sss

(Intercept)

29.6

1.593

26.5, 32.7

group

control

—

—

—

treatment

-3.37

2.266

-7.81, 1.07

0.141

time_point

1st

—

—

—

2nd

0.816

1.422

-1.97, 3.60

0.569

group * time_point

treatment * 2nd

-3.49

1.991

-7.39, 0.414

0.086

Pseudo R square

0.054

1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.09 (95% CI [2.74, 3.45], t(124) = 17.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.48], t(124) = -0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.40])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.76], t(124) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.64])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.98], t(124) = 0.61, p = 0.544; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.41) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.86 (95% CI [17.04, 18.68], t(124) = 42.52, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.48], t(124) = 0.51, p = 0.608; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.42, 0.91], t(124) = -0.42, p = 0.671; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.73, 2.53], t(124) = 1.08, p = 0.281; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.92])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.63 (95% CI [28.14, 31.11], t(124) = 39.10, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.13, 95% CI [-0.98, 3.25], t(124) = 1.05, p = 0.293; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.64])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.97], t(124) = 0.42, p = 0.673; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.11, 95% CI [-1.16, 3.38], t(124) = 0.96, p = 0.339; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.67])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.47, 12.67], t(124) = 39.71, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.18], t(124) = 0.77, p = 0.439; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.59])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.29, -0.09], t(124) = -2.26, p = 0.024; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.65, -0.05])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.77, 95% CI [-0.07, 1.61], t(124) = 1.80, p = 0.071; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.81])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.49 (95% CI [16.58, 18.40], t(124) = 37.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-1.07, 1.52], t(124) = 0.34, p = 0.732; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.49])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-1.99, 0.10], t(124) = -1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.03])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.85, 95% CI [0.38, 3.32], t(124) = 2.47, p = 0.014; Std. beta = 0.60, 95% CI [0.12, 1.07])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.98 (95% CI [12.16, 13.80], t(124) = 31.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.33], t(124) = 0.28, p = 0.780; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.47])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.29], t(124) = 1.08, p = 0.278; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-0.28, 2.06], t(124) = 1.49, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.51) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.42 (95% CI [9.74, 11.10], t(124) = 29.95, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.99, 95% CI [-1.96, -0.02], t(124) = -2.00, p = 0.045; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.86, -8.80e-03])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.45, 0.36], t(124) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.16])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.68, 95% CI [0.41, 2.94], t(124) = 2.60, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.18, 1.29])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.95 (95% CI [29.03, 34.88], t(124) = 21.42, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.10, 95% CI [-7.25, 1.06], t(124) = -1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = -0.31, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-2.11, 2.61], t(124) = 0.21, p = 0.837; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-5.11, 1.49], t(124) = -1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.15])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.81) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.21e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.53 (95% CI [21.07, 24.00], t(124) = 30.09, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.48, 2.70], t(124) = 0.57, p = 0.568; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.55])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.04, 0.45], t(124) = -1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.57, 1.92], t(124) = 0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.40])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.12 (95% CI [23.37, 26.87], t(124) = 28.13, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.43, 95% CI [-1.06, 3.92], t(124) = 1.13, p = 0.260; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.68])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.05, 95% CI [-2.79, 0.69], t(124) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.29, 95% CI [-1.15, 3.72], t(124) = 1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.65])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.86 (95% CI [16.83, 20.90], t(124) = 18.17, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.38, 95% CI [0.48, 6.27], t(124) = 2.29, p = 0.022; Std. beta = 0.48, 95% CI [0.07, 0.90])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [-1.53, 3.32], t(124) = 0.72, p = 0.469; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.47])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-3.59, 3.20], t(124) = -0.11, p = 0.909; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.46])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.67 (95% CI [9.56, 11.79], t(124) = 18.72, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.06, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.65], t(124) = 1.31, p = 0.190; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-0.72, 1.43], t(124) = 0.65, p = 0.517; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.39])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.02, 0.99], t(124) = -0.68, p = 0.500; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.27])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.14 (95% CI [13.49, 16.79], t(124) = 17.99, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-2.56, 2.14], t(124) = -0.18, p = 0.860; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.39])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.76, 2.97], t(124) = 1.16, p = 0.246; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.89, 95% CI [-3.50, 1.73], t(124) = -0.67, p = 0.505; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.31])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.98e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.56 (95% CI [19.68, 23.44], t(124) = 22.49, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.20, 95% CI [-1.47, 3.88], t(124) = 0.88, p = 0.377; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.61])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-1.26, 2.78], t(124) = 0.74, p = 0.459; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-3.28, 2.38], t(124) = -0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.37])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.96, 17.60], t(124) = 24.11, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [-1.09, 2.68], t(124) = 0.82, p = 0.409; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.60])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.48], t(124) = 0.02, p = 0.981; Std. beta = 3.94e-03, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.33])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.16, 95% CI [-0.88, 3.20], t(124) = 1.11, p = 0.266; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.72])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.26 (95% CI [12.39, 14.12], t(124) = 29.90, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-0.33, 2.15], t(124) = 1.44, p = 0.149; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.72])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.21], t(124) = -1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.07])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.49, 2.48], t(124) = 1.31, p = 0.189; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.83])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.51 (95% CI [15.62, 17.41], t(124) = 36.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.02, 2.52], t(124) = 1.92, p = 0.054; Std. beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-7.57e-03, 0.82])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.87, 1.07], t(124) = 0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.00, 1.72], t(124) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.56])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.11. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.53 (95% CI [10.62, 12.45], t(124) = 24.70, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.27, 95% CI [0.97, 3.58], t(124) = 3.42, p < .001; Std. beta = 0.70, 95% CI [0.30, 1.11])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.97, 95% CI [0.03, 1.91], t(124) = 2.02, p = 0.044; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [8.60e-03, 0.59])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.96, 0.67], t(124) = -0.96, p = 0.336; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.21])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.10. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.05 (95% CI [26.41, 29.69], t(124) = 33.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 3.52, 95% CI [1.19, 5.86], t(124) = 2.96, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.61, 95% CI [0.21, 1.02])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.02, 95% CI [-0.60, 2.64], t(124) = 1.24, p = 0.217; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.46])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-2.49, 2.04], t(124) = -0.19, p = 0.848; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.35])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.84 (95% CI [25.04, 30.64], t(124) = 19.48, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.88, 95% CI [-5.87, 2.10], t(124) = -0.93, p = 0.354; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.22])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-1.91, 2.92], t(124) = 0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.87, 95% CI [-5.25, 1.51], t(124) = -1.08, p = 0.279; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.16])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.74 (95% CI [12.31, 15.18], t(124) = 18.82, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.68, 95% CI [-0.35, 3.72], t(124) = 1.62, p = 0.105; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.81], t(124) = 0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.38])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-1.79, 2.50], t(124) = 0.32, p = 0.746; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.52])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.02 (95% CI [14.87, 17.18], t(124) = 27.15, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.10, 95% CI [-0.55, 2.74], t(124) = 1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-1.04, 1.39], t(124) = 0.29, p = 0.776; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-1.95, 1.45], t(124) = -0.29, p = 0.772; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.38])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.77 (95% CI [27.33, 32.20], t(124) = 23.94, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.78, 95% CI [-0.69, 6.25], t(124) = 1.57, p = 0.116; Std. beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.77])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-2.07, 2.97], t(124) = 0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.36])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-3.41, 3.65], t(124) = 0.07, p = 0.945; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.45])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.30) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.93 (95% CI [12.51, 13.35], t(124) = 60.01, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.12], t(124) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.09])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.68], t(124) = 0.11, p = 0.913; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.48])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.62, 1.18], t(124) = 0.61, p = 0.543; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.84])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.50e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.86 (95% CI [13.88, 15.84], t(124) = 29.77, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.09, 1.70], t(124) = 0.43, p = 0.666; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.52])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.85], t(124) = -0.55, p = 0.585; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.26])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.69, 1.62], t(124) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.33 (95% CI [12.10, 14.55], t(124) = 21.28, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.44, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.18], t(124) = 0.49, p = 0.624; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -7.22e-03, 95% CI [-1.44, 1.42], t(124) = -9.89e-03, p = 0.992; Std. beta = -1.78e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.35])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.98, 2.03], t(124) = 0.02, p = 0.983; Std. beta = 5.49e-03, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.50])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.19 (95% CI [26.21, 30.17], t(124) = 27.89, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [-2.08, 3.56], t(124) = 0.52, p = 0.606; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.54])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-2.66, 1.97], t(124) = -0.29, p = 0.769; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.90e-05, 95% CI [-3.24, 3.24], t(124) = -1.15e-05, p > .999; Std. beta = -2.87e-06, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.49])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.95 (95% CI [17.73, 20.18], t(124) = 30.27, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.05, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.79], t(124) = 1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.67])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.24], t(124) = 0.15, p = 0.880; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.30])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-2.08, 1.15], t(124) = -0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.28])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.67, 15.17], t(124) = 37.50, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.35, 1.80], t(124) = 1.32, p = 0.185; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.71])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.95, 1.10], t(124) = 0.14, p = 0.886; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.44])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 8.06e-03, 95% CI [-1.43, 1.45], t(124) = 0.01, p = 0.991; Std. beta = 3.20e-03, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.57])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.07. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.42 (95% CI [11.49, 13.34], t(124) = 26.30, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.94, 95% CI [-3.26, -0.63], t(124) = -2.89, p = 0.004; Std. beta = -0.61, 95% CI [-1.02, -0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.66, 95% CI [-1.65, 0.33], t(124) = -1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.10])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.27], t(124) = 1.24, p = 0.213; Std. beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.71])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.56 (95% CI [9.47, 11.65], t(124) = 19.04, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.06, 95% CI [-2.60, 0.49], t(124) = -1.34, p = 0.180; Std. beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.13])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.96, 1.15], t(124) = 0.17, p = 0.863; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.31])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.18, 95% CI [-2.66, 0.30], t(124) = -1.56, p = 0.119; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.71, 0.08])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.25, 11.54], t(124) = 17.83, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.47, 95% CI [-3.09, 0.16], t(124) = -1.77, p = 0.077; Std. beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.04])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.51, 0.91], t(124) = -0.49, p = 0.622; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.23])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-2.14, 1.25], t(124) = -0.52, p = 0.603; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.32])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.65 (95% CI [7.53, 9.77], t(124) = 15.14, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.44, 0.75], t(124) = -1.04, p = 0.301; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.20])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.08, 1.97], t(124) = 1.81, p = 0.070; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.53])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.81, 95% CI [-3.25, -0.38], t(124) = -2.48, p = 0.013; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.87, -0.10])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.05. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.60 (95% CI [26.48, 32.73], t(124) = 18.59, p < .001). Within this model:

  • The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.37, 95% CI [-7.81, 1.07], t(124) = -1.49, p = 0.137; Std. beta = -0.32, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.10])
  • The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.82, 95% CI [-1.97, 3.60], t(124) = 0.57, p = 0.566; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.34])
  • The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.49, 95% CI [-7.39, 0.41], t(124) = -1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = -0.33, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.04])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome

model

npar

AIC

BIC

logLik

deviance

Chisq

Df

p

recovery_stage_a

null

3

414.614

423.216

-204.307

408.614

recovery_stage_a

random

6

416.979

434.184

-202.489

404.979

3.635

3

0.304

recovery_stage_b

null

3

629.087

637.690

-311.544

623.087

recovery_stage_b

random

6

632.470

649.675

-310.235

620.470

2.617

3

0.454

ras_confidence

null

3

766.475

775.078

-380.238

760.475

ras_confidence

random

6

766.974

784.180

-377.487

754.974

5.501

3

0.139

ras_willingness

null

3

523.915

532.518

-258.958

517.915

ras_willingness

random

6

523.114

540.319

-255.557

511.114

6.801

3

0.079

ras_goal

null

3

645.187

653.789

-319.593

639.187

ras_goal

random

6

643.678

660.884

-315.839

631.678

7.508

3

0.057

ras_reliance

null

3

612.569

621.172

-303.285

606.569

ras_reliance

random

6

606.697

623.903

-297.349

594.697

11.872

3

0.008

ras_domination

null

3

581.517

590.120

-287.759

575.517

ras_domination

random

6

579.049

596.254

-283.524

567.049

8.468

3

0.037

symptom

null

3

916.964

925.567

-455.482

910.964

symptom

random

6

918.087

935.293

-453.044

906.087

4.877

3

0.181

slof_work

null

3

740.327

748.930

-367.164

734.327

slof_work

random

6

743.365

760.570

-365.682

731.365

2.963

3

0.397

slof_relationship

null

3

799.808

808.411

-396.904

793.808

slof_relationship

random

6

802.156

819.361

-395.078

790.156

3.652

3

0.302

satisfaction

null

3

856.225

864.828

-425.113

850.225

satisfaction

random

6

855.627

872.832

-421.813

843.627

6.598

3

0.086

mhc_emotional

null

3

678.715

687.318

-336.358

672.715

mhc_emotional

random

6

682.784

699.990

-335.392

670.784

1.931

3

0.587

mhc_social

null

3

792.701

801.304

-393.351

786.701

mhc_social

random

6

797.099

814.305

-392.550

785.099

1.602

3

0.659

mhc_psychological

null

3

822.373

830.975

-408.186

816.373

mhc_psychological

random

6

826.996

844.202

-407.498

814.996

1.376

3

0.711

resilisnce

null

3

736.037

744.639

-365.018

730.037

resilisnce

random

6

737.833

755.038

-362.916

725.833

4.204

3

0.240

social_provision

null

3

637.031

645.634

-315.516

631.031

social_provision

random

6

636.325

653.530

-312.163

624.325

6.706

3

0.082

els_value_living

null

3

634.756

643.358

-314.378

628.756

els_value_living

random

6

634.965

652.170

-311.483

622.965

5.791

3

0.122

els_life_fulfill

null

3

645.276

653.879

-319.638

639.276

els_life_fulfill

random

6

636.347

653.552

-312.173

624.347

14.930

3

0.002

els

null

3

790.286

798.889

-392.143

784.286

els

random

6

784.807

802.012

-386.403

772.807

11.480

3

0.009

social_connect

null

3

909.756

918.359

-451.878

903.756

social_connect

random

6

912.762

929.967

-450.381

900.762

2.994

3

0.393

shs_agency

null

3

754.036

762.639

-374.018

748.036

shs_agency

random

6

755.882

773.087

-371.941

743.882

4.155

3

0.245

shs_pathway

null

3

694.520

703.122

-344.260

688.520

shs_pathway

random

6

698.762

715.967

-343.381

686.762

1.758

3

0.624

shs

null

3

888.627

897.229

-441.313

882.627

shs

random

6

891.473

908.678

-439.736

879.473

3.154

3

0.368

esteem

null

3

460.118

468.721

-227.059

454.118

esteem

random

6

463.039

480.244

-225.519

451.039

3.080

3

0.380

mlq_search

null

3

661.152

669.754

-327.576

655.152

mlq_search

random

6

666.261

683.466

-327.130

654.261

0.891

3

0.828

mlq_presence

null

3

716.836

725.438

-355.418

710.836

mlq_presence

random

6

722.547

739.753

-355.274

710.547

0.288

3

0.962

mlq

null

3

841.682

850.285

-417.841

835.682

mlq

random

6

847.194

864.399

-417.597

835.194

0.488

3

0.921

empower

null

3

700.819

709.421

-347.409

694.819

empower

random

6

705.203

722.409

-346.602

693.203

1.615

3

0.656

ismi_resistance

null

3

603.231

611.834

-298.615

597.231

ismi_resistance

random

6

607.008

624.213

-297.504

595.008

2.223

3

0.527

ismi_discrimation

null

3

645.467

654.069

-319.733

639.467

ismi_discrimation

random

6

642.659

659.864

-315.329

630.659

8.808

3

0.032

sss_affective

null

3

678.269

686.872

-336.134

672.269

sss_affective

random

6

676.633

693.838

-332.316

664.633

7.636

3

0.054

sss_behavior

null

3

696.402

705.005

-345.201

690.402

sss_behavior

random

6

696.471

713.676

-342.235

684.471

5.932

3

0.115

sss_cognitive

null

3

682.061

690.664

-338.031

676.061

sss_cognitive

random

6

679.297

696.502

-333.648

667.297

8.764

3

0.033

sss

null

3

945.718

954.320

-469.859

939.718

sss

random

6

943.778

960.983

-465.889

931.778

7.939

3

0.047

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome

time

control

treatment

between

n

estimate

within es

n

estimate

within es

p

es

recovery_stage_a

1st

43

3.09 ± 1.19

42

3.07 ± 1.19

0.933

0.022

recovery_stage_a

2nd

22

3.32 ± 1.17

-0.224

23

3.53 ± 1.17

-0.458

0.546

-0.212

recovery_stage_b

1st

43

17.86 ± 2.75

42

18.17 ± 2.75

0.609

-0.143

recovery_stage_b

2nd

22

17.61 ± 2.67

0.118

23

18.81 ± 2.67

-0.303

0.132

-0.565

ras_confidence

1st

43

29.63 ± 4.97

42

30.76 ± 4.97

0.295

-0.397

ras_confidence

2nd

22

29.98 ± 4.41

-0.122

23

32.22 ± 4.45

-0.510

0.092

-0.784

ras_willingness

1st

43

12.07 ± 1.99

42

12.40 ± 1.99

0.440

-0.318

ras_willingness

2nd

22

11.38 ± 1.73

0.657

23

12.49 ± 1.75

-0.079

0.034

-1.054

ras_goal

1st

43

17.49 ± 3.04

42

17.71 ± 3.04

0.733

-0.121

ras_goal

2nd

22

16.54 ± 2.75

0.507

23

18.62 ± 2.77

-0.487

0.013

-1.116

ras_reliance

1st

43

12.98 ± 2.74

42

13.14 ± 2.74

0.781

-0.114

ras_reliance

2nd

22

13.44 ± 2.38

-0.315

23

14.49 ± 2.41

-0.924

0.142

-0.722

ras_domination

1st

43

10.42 ± 2.28

42

9.43 ± 2.28

0.048

0.606

ras_domination

2nd

22

9.87 ± 2.16

0.333

23

10.56 ± 2.17

-0.695

0.288

-0.422

symptom

1st

43

31.95 ± 9.78

42

28.86 ± 9.78

0.148

0.760

symptom

2nd

22

32.20 ± 8.00

-0.061

23

27.30 ± 8.14

0.383

0.044

1.203

slof_work

1st

43

22.53 ± 4.91

42

23.14 ± 4.91

0.570

-0.281

slof_work

2nd

22

21.74 ± 4.06

0.368

23

22.53 ± 4.13

0.285

0.521

-0.364

slof_relationship

1st

43

25.12 ± 5.85

42

26.55 ± 5.85

0.263

-0.470

slof_relationship

2nd

22

24.07 ± 5.05

0.344

23

26.79 ± 5.11

-0.079

0.075

-0.893

satisfaction

1st

43

18.86 ± 6.81

42

22.24 ± 6.81

0.024

-0.782

satisfaction

2nd

22

19.76 ± 6.22

-0.207

23

22.93 ± 6.26

-0.161

0.090

-0.737

mhc_emotional

1st

43

10.67 ± 3.74

42

11.74 ± 3.74

0.193

-0.567

mhc_emotional

2nd

22

11.03 ± 3.19

-0.189

23

11.58 ± 3.24

0.087

0.570

-0.291

mhc_social

1st

43

15.14 ± 5.52

42

14.93 ± 5.52

0.860

0.064

mhc_social

2nd

22

16.24 ± 4.95

-0.334

23

15.14 ± 5.00

-0.065

0.460

0.333

mhc_psychological

1st

43

21.56 ± 6.29

42

22.76 ± 6.29

0.379

-0.338

mhc_psychological

2nd

22

22.32 ± 5.55

-0.214

23

23.07 ± 5.61

-0.088

0.652

-0.211

resilisnce

1st

43

16.28 ± 4.43

42

17.07 ± 4.43

0.411

-0.308

resilisnce

2nd

22

16.30 ± 3.94

-0.007

23

18.25 ± 3.98

-0.457

0.101

-0.758

social_provision

1st

43

13.26 ± 2.91

42

14.17 ± 2.91

0.152

-0.480

social_provision

2nd

22

12.41 ± 2.68

0.448

23

14.31 ± 2.70

-0.077

0.019

-1.005

els_value_living

1st

43

16.51 ± 3.00

42

17.76 ± 3.00

0.057

-0.730

els_value_living

2nd

22

16.61 ± 2.65

-0.058

23

18.22 ± 2.68

-0.267

0.045

-0.939

els_life_fulfill

1st

43

11.53 ± 3.06

42

13.81 ± 3.06

0.001

-1.378

els_life_fulfill

2nd

22

12.50 ± 2.67

-0.586

23

14.13 ± 2.70

-0.195

0.044

-0.986

els

1st

43

28.05 ± 5.49

42

31.57 ± 5.49

0.004

-1.245

els

2nd

22

29.07 ± 4.73

-0.360

23

32.37 ± 4.79

-0.282

0.021

-1.167

social_connect

1st

43

27.84 ± 9.37

42

25.95 ± 9.37

0.356

0.449

social_connect

2nd

22

28.34 ± 7.79

-0.120

23

24.59 ± 7.91

0.325

0.111

0.895

shs_agency

1st

43

13.74 ± 4.79

42

15.43 ± 4.79

0.108

-0.624

shs_agency

2nd

22

14.02 ± 4.22

-0.104

23

16.06 ± 4.27

-0.235

0.110

-0.755

shs_pathway

1st

43

16.02 ± 3.87

42

17.12 ± 3.87

0.195

-0.514

shs_pathway

2nd

22

16.20 ± 3.39

-0.083

23

17.04 ± 3.43

0.035

0.407

-0.397

shs

1st

43

29.77 ± 8.15

42

32.55 ± 8.15

0.119

-0.628

shs

2nd

22

30.22 ± 7.12

-0.101

23

33.12 ± 7.20

-0.129

0.176

-0.656

esteem

1st

43

12.93 ± 1.41

42

12.45 ± 1.41

0.122

0.399

esteem

2nd

22

12.97 ± 1.40

-0.030

23

12.77 ± 1.40

-0.264

0.637

0.165

mlq_search

1st

43

14.86 ± 3.27

42

15.17 ± 3.27

0.667

-0.145

mlq_search

2nd

22

14.53 ± 3.00

0.156

23

14.80 ± 3.02

0.172

0.762

-0.129

mlq_presence

1st

43

13.33 ± 4.11

42

13.76 ± 4.11

0.625

-0.172

mlq_presence

2nd

22

13.32 ± 3.72

0.003

23

13.78 ± 3.75

-0.006

0.681

-0.180

mlq

1st

43

28.19 ± 6.63

42

28.93 ± 6.63

0.607

-0.181

mlq

2nd

22

27.84 ± 6.01

0.084

23

28.58 ± 6.06

0.084

0.681

-0.181

empower

1st

43

18.95 ± 4.11

42

20.00 ± 4.11

0.243

-0.521

empower

2nd

22

19.04 ± 3.49

-0.044

23

19.62 ± 3.54

0.188

0.580

-0.289

ismi_resistance

1st

43

14.42 ± 2.52

42

15.14 ± 2.52

0.188

-0.388

ismi_resistance

2nd

22

14.49 ± 2.41

-0.040

23

15.23 ± 2.42

-0.045

0.311

-0.392

ismi_discrimation

1st

43

12.42 ± 3.10

42

10.48 ± 3.10

0.005

1.111

ismi_discrimation

2nd

22

11.76 ± 2.73

0.379

23

10.70 ± 2.76

-0.126

0.198

0.607

sss_affective

1st

43

10.56 ± 3.64

42

9.50 ± 3.64

0.183

0.572

sss_affective

2nd

22

10.65 ± 3.12

-0.050

23

8.42 ± 3.16

0.586

0.018

1.209

sss_behavior

1st

43

10.40 ± 3.82

42

8.93 ± 3.82

0.080

0.689

sss_behavior

2nd

22

10.09 ± 3.36

0.143

23

8.17 ± 3.40

0.354

0.059

0.900

sss_cognitive

1st

43

8.65 ± 3.75

42

7.81 ± 3.75

0.303

0.472

sss_cognitive

2nd

22

9.60 ± 3.16

-0.530

23

6.94 ± 3.21

0.485

0.006

1.488

sss

1st

43

29.60 ± 10.44

42

26.24 ± 10.44

0.141

0.695

sss

2nd

22

30.42 ± 8.75

-0.168

23

23.57 ± 8.89

0.551

0.010

1.415

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(119.15) = -0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.49)

2st

t(125.29) = 0.60, p = 0.546, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.90)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(114.16) = 0.51, p = 0.609, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.49)

2st

t(125.17) = 1.52, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.37 to 2.78)

ras_confidence

1st

t(99.39) = 1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.01 to 3.27)

2st

t(125.96) = 1.70, p = 0.092, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (-0.37 to 4.86)

ras_willingness

1st

t(96.56) = 0.77, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.19)

2st

t(125.41) = 2.14, p = 0.034, Cohen d = -1.05, 95% CI (0.08 to 2.13)

ras_goal

1st

t(101.83) = 0.34, p = 0.733, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.53)

2st

t(125.97) = 2.52, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -1.12, 95% CI (0.45 to 3.70)

ras_reliance

1st

t(96.85) = 0.28, p = 0.781, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.35)

2st

t(125.51) = 1.48, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (-0.36 to 2.47)

ras_domination

1st

t(109.47) = -2.00, p = 0.048, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-1.97 to -0.01)

2st

t(125.36) = 1.07, p = 0.288, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.97)

symptom

1st

t(91.11) = -1.46, p = 0.148, Cohen d = 0.76, 95% CI (-7.31 to 1.12)

2st

t(120.20) = -2.04, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 1.20, 95% CI (-9.67 to -0.14)

slof_work

1st

t(92.11) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.72)

2st

t(121.83) = 0.64, p = 0.521, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-1.63 to 3.21)

slof_relationship

1st

t(96.14) = 1.13, p = 0.263, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (-1.09 to 3.95)

2st

t(125.25) = 1.79, p = 0.075, Cohen d = -0.89, 95% CI (-0.28 to 5.72)

satisfaction

1st

t(103.36) = 2.29, p = 0.024, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.45 to 6.31)

2st

t(125.88) = 1.71, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.74, 95% CI (-0.50 to 6.86)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(95.11) = 1.31, p = 0.193, Cohen d = -0.57, 95% CI (-0.55 to 2.67)

2st

t(124.74) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.35 to 2.44)

mhc_social

1st

t(100.94) = -0.18, p = 0.860, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-2.59 to 2.16)

2st

t(126.00) = -0.74, p = 0.460, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-4.04 to 1.84)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(98.87) = 0.88, p = 0.379, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.50 to 3.91)

2st

t(125.91) = 0.45, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-2.54 to 4.05)

resilisnce

1st

t(99.82) = 0.82, p = 0.411, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.11 to 2.70)

2st

t(125.98) = 1.65, p = 0.101, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.38 to 4.29)

social_provision

1st

t(104.70) = 1.44, p = 0.152, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.34 to 2.16)

2st

t(125.77) = 2.38, p = 0.019, Cohen d = -1.01, 95% CI (0.32 to 3.49)

els_value_living

1st

t(99.21) = 1.92, p = 0.057, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (-0.04 to 2.54)

2st

t(125.95) = 2.02, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.94, 95% CI (0.04 to 3.18)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(97.21) = 3.42, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -1.38, 95% CI (0.96 to 3.59)

2st

t(125.61) = 2.03, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.99, 95% CI (0.04 to 3.21)

els

1st

t(95.89) = 2.96, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -1.24, 95% CI (1.16 to 5.89)

2st

t(125.14) = 2.33, p = 0.021, Cohen d = -1.17, 95% CI (0.50 to 6.11)

social_connect

1st

t(92.46) = -0.93, p = 0.356, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-5.92 to 2.15)

2st

t(122.31) = -1.60, p = 0.111, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-8.39 to 0.88)

shs_agency

1st

t(98.69) = 1.62, p = 0.108, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-0.38 to 3.75)

2st

t(125.89) = 1.61, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (-0.47 to 4.55)

shs_pathway

1st

t(97.89) = 1.31, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.57 to 2.76)

2st

t(125.77) = 0.83, p = 0.407, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-1.17 to 2.86)

shs

1st

t(97.44) = 1.57, p = 0.119, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.73 to 6.29)

2st

t(125.67) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.66, 95% CI (-1.32 to 7.13)

esteem

1st

t(119.74) = -1.56, p = 0.122, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.13)

2st

t(125.33) = -0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.02 to 0.63)

mlq_search

1st

t(104.06) = 0.43, p = 0.667, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.71)

2st

t(125.82) = 0.30, p = 0.762, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.51 to 2.05)

mlq_presence

1st

t(102.32) = 0.49, p = 0.625, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-1.33 to 2.20)

2st

t(125.95) = 0.41, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.75 to 2.66)

mlq

1st

t(102.40) = 0.52, p = 0.607, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.11 to 3.59)

2st

t(125.94) = 0.41, p = 0.681, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.82 to 4.30)

empower

1st

t(94.49) = 1.17, p = 0.243, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.72 to 2.81)

2st

t(124.33) = 0.55, p = 0.580, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-1.49 to 2.65)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(111.41) = 1.32, p = 0.188, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.81)

2st

t(125.25) = 1.02, p = 0.311, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.69 to 2.16)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(98.73) = -2.89, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 1.11, 95% CI (-3.28 to -0.61)

2st

t(125.90) = -1.29, p = 0.198, Cohen d = 0.61, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.56)

sss_affective

1st

t(95.48) = -1.34, p = 0.183, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-2.62 to 0.51)

2st

t(124.95) = -2.39, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.21, 95% CI (-4.09 to -0.38)

sss_behavior

1st

t(98.28) = -1.77, p = 0.080, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-3.11 to 0.18)

2st

t(125.84) = -1.90, p = 0.059, Cohen d = 0.90, 95% CI (-3.91 to 0.08)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(93.81) = -1.04, p = 0.303, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-2.46 to 0.77)

2st

t(123.78) = -2.80, p = 0.006, Cohen d = 1.49, 95% CI (-4.53 to -0.77)

sss

1st

t(93.23) = -1.49, p = 0.141, Cohen d = 0.69, 95% CI (-7.87 to 1.13)

2st

t(123.22) = -2.61, p = 0.010, Cohen d = 1.41, 95% CI (-12.06 to -1.65)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(62.25) = 1.68, p = 0.195, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.00)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(58.69) = 1.10, p = 0.552, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 1.83)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(50.61) = 1.79, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.18 to 3.09)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(49.25) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.52 to 0.69)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(51.82) = 1.72, p = 0.184, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.97)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(49.39) = 3.23, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.92, 95% CI (0.51 to 2.19)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(55.87) = 2.49, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.05)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(46.70) = -1.32, p = 0.386, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-3.94 to 0.82)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(47.16) = -0.98, p = 0.660, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.64)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(49.05) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.52 to 1.99)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(52.60) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.75 to 3.14)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(48.56) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.25 to 0.92)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(51.38) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.67 to 2.10)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(50.36) = 0.31, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.73 to 2.35)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(50.83) = 1.61, p = 0.229, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (-0.29 to 2.65)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(53.29) = 0.27, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.93 to 1.22)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(50.53) = 0.94, p = 0.706, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.44)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(49.56) = 0.68, p = 0.998, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.27)

els

1st vs 2st

t(48.93) = 0.98, p = 0.661, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.83 to 2.43)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(47.32) = -1.13, p = 0.532, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.80 to 1.07)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(50.28) = 0.82, p = 0.828, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.91 to 2.18)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(49.89) = -0.12, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.15)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(49.67) = 0.45, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.97 to 3.12)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(62.73) = 0.97, p = 0.671, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.97)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(52.96) = -0.61, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.17, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.83)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(52.07) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.43 to 1.46)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(52.11) = -0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.68 to 1.99)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(48.27) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.79)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(56.99) = 0.16, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.12)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(50.29) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.22)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(48.74) = -2.04, p = 0.093, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-2.15 to -0.02)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(50.08) = -1.24, p = 0.441, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.98 to 0.47)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(47.95) = -1.68, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.49, 95% CI (-1.90 to 0.17)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(47.68) = -1.91, p = 0.124, Cohen d = 0.55, 95% CI (-5.48 to 0.14)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(64.03) = 0.81, p = 0.841, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.77)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(60.13) = -0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.95)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(51.28) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.02)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(49.79) = -2.25, p = 0.058, Cohen d = 0.66, 95% CI (-1.31 to -0.07)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(52.60) = -1.76, p = 0.170, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-2.02 to 0.13)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(49.94) = 1.08, p = 0.571, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.32)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(57.04) = -1.17, p = 0.492, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-1.47 to 0.38)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(47.00) = 0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-2.18 to 2.67)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(47.51) = -1.25, p = 0.438, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-2.08 to 0.49)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(49.57) = -1.18, p = 0.491, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-2.84 to 0.74)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(53.44) = 0.72, p = 0.950, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.60 to 3.39)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(49.04) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.46)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(52.11) = 1.15, p = 0.508, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.82 to 3.02)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(51.00) = 0.74, p = 0.929, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-1.32 to 2.84)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(51.51) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.52)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(54.20) = -1.56, p = 0.249, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.94 to 0.24)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(51.18) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.10)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(50.13) = 2.01, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.94)

els

1st vs 2st

t(49.44) = 1.23, p = 0.449, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.65 to 2.69)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(47.68) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.98 to 2.99)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(50.91) = 0.36, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.86)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(50.48) = 0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-1.07 to 1.42)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(50.24) = 0.35, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-2.15 to 3.04)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(64.56) = 0.11, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.70)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(53.84) = -0.54, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.54 to 0.89)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(52.86) = -0.01, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.48 to 1.46)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(52.91) = -0.29, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-2.73 to 2.03)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(48.72) = 0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.27)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(58.26) = 0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.98 to 1.13)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(50.93) = -1.30, p = 0.397, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-1.68 to 0.36)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(49.23) = 0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.00 to 1.18)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(50.69) = -0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.55 to 0.94)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(48.37) = 1.80, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (-0.11 to 2.00)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(48.07) = 0.57, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.69)

Plot

Clinical significance